Fact Sheets:
The End of the Arafat Era

(Updated November 2004)

Yasser
Arafat failed to achieve an independent Palestinian state and refused
to make peace with Israel.
New Palestinian leadership offers a fresh opportunity for a negotiated
settlement that would establish a Palestinian state next to the democratic
Jewish state.

Ideally, the Palestinians will hold a democratic election
that will bring to power a person with the courage and vision of Anwar
Sadat and King Hussein.
Such a leader would reform the Palestinian
Authority and put an end to violence. Israel’s leaders would
respond favorably and resume negotiations.

While the United States and Israel undoubtedly have
favorites who they would like to see emerge as leaders of the Palestinians,
American or Israeli support would be counterproductive. Most Palestinians
would see such an endorsement as an indication of the candidate’s
weakness or lack of commitment to the nationalist cause.

Given Palestinian politics, it does not seem likely
that Arafat’s replacement will be chosen by democratic means.

Arafat’s leadership was based largely on the
loyalty of security forces that he earned by paying them off with international
aid intended for the Palestinian people. These forces are loyal to no
other leader and whoever takes control of Palestinian finances may be
able to buy their support.

Since Arafat maintained power by virtue of having the
most guns, it is likely he will be succeeded by the person with the
next largest arsenal. This could be one of the security or intelligence
chiefs in the West Bank or Gaza.
The equivalent of a mob war may break out among these competing warlords.

A civil war among the Palestinians may be a necessary
condition for establishing a governing authority that can make peace.
The Islamic fundamentalists will have to be marginalized, and the terrorists jailed or eliminated if the Palestinian
Authority is to have any hope of evolving into a state.

So long as the Palestinians do not allow their internal
conflict to spillover into Israel, the Israelis should allow them to
choose their own leaders. Israel, however, will have no obligation to
negotiate with them unless they are committed to peace and a two-state
solution.

If one of the warlords succeeds in winning power, he
may become a partner for negotiations. At least one of the security
chiefs is considered a potential interlocutor, but it is also possible
that the winner of a power struggle will be a radical who is committed
to the same destructive policies as Arafat.

Although they are trying to exert control in the short-term,
it seems unlikely that the current or former prime minister has the
popular support, or the authority over the security forces, to hold
power or advance the peace process. Should they succeed, however, in
solidifying their leadership, and taking the necessary measures to stop
the terror, Israel may be able to negotiate with them.

One danger is that pressure will automatically be placed
on Israel to make concessions, or to be less aggressive in fighting
the war on terror, regardless of whether Arafat’s successor makes
a commitment to peace. It may be in Israel’s interest to take
steps to help a new Palestinian leader, but these measures will have
to be calibrated based on the security situation.

If a future Palestinian leader commits by word and by deed to the terms of the road
map, Israel can be expected to respond positively.